Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:55938 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 3007 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2011 20:27:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Oct 2011 20:27:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.42 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.213.42 mail-yw0-f42.google.com Received: from [209.85.213.42] ([209.85.213.42:51311] helo=mail-yw0-f42.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 10/B2-20137-83AC5AE4 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:27:37 -0400 Received: by ywb26 with SMTP id 26so3893132ywb.29 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:27:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=GVa8+h29Oi909MW7T6uYMbyUC1jLXFFStORiGds4K5g=; b=aKCRtnBJJSPthd4Y9cjf496r2pmqmK1XyqlKiVMLn6IICCnOybG1UHCfga33b/U1LW q9UzAQfc8g8YXrOt1TnXn7uxBSxW+YI4Lz3kkpNlMMvMxY25lovvQEJsKqtyXGWRXoVZ XHkKZEniXi+NQGQS0ztzjyVTZlF8U06vK7K60= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.59.12 with SMTP id m12mr22634018ybk.49.1319488051826; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.147.170.17 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:27:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:27:31 +0200 Message-ID: To: Gustavo Lopes Cc: internals@lists.php.net, Etienne Kneuss Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] BC break in 5.4, extending internal class From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye) hi, On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Gustavo Lopes wrote: > The change I did in 5.4 should be reverted and synced with 5.3 in the > short term because it doesn't work reliably (even not considering the BC > break) -- there are other methods for getting an invalid instance (the new > reflection method and unserialize, at least). Please do the revert, as you did the commit in the 1st place. As far as I remember we have discussed this issue back then already as well. > But even in 5.3, there are in SPL counter-measures that don't work > reliably, like making a check in get_method. Right, but that's another concern and the same cautiousness should be taken there. Thanks! -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org